student vs professor

[Tokzic]

What gets me is that this is in Critical Thinking. It's a cute little story designed to put a smile on the average Christian's face when they get it forwarded to them in their e-mail. Not worth the thought people have been giving it if you ask me.

[liljj_701]

i actually liked it, so what if he copied and paste it on there it was good.

[duhh_]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Ah ah aaaaaahhh... You're not thinking philosophically here. Sure, it's reasonable to assume, but assumptions aren't at all connected with proof in philosophy. Ever heard that it's impossible to prove something (besides mathematics)? Well, it is. Can you prove that the keyboard in front of you exists? Can you prove that your brain exists? In order to do these things you have to prove that everyone's not having a mass hallucination in all their senses simultaneously. But then you can call into question the existence of everyone else, and so the only thing you can really prove is your own existence, just like Descartes did, "Cogito ergo sum."

Scientifically, a convergence of evidence will prove scientifically that the teacher has a brain, but it won't be able to scratch the surface on whether or not he truly has a brain, in the philosophical sense.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

i think you are the only one who somewhat understands the meanings behind this thread.

[Iam_a_Maid]

As I started reading about evolution bit, I stopped.

[TK_Bakonfat69]

Why because you can't accept that your great(x a lot) grandparents were monkeys? I actually believe we evolved from water. You know how the human body is a lot of water? Yah, that is because we were water once. WE aren't even living. It's a fact. It is science.

[Hr2]

What a dumb prof, if he couldn't stop that student, then let me take his job, because I could probably have torn him a new asshole.

Have you seen someone's brain? No, but since everyone who is born without one is born dead, it is QUITE ****ing easy to infer that it exists.

[Ryusei_]

Originally Posted by Hr2

What a dumb prof, if he couldn't stop that student, then let me take his job, because I could probably have torn him a new asshole.

Have you seen someone's brain? No, but since everyone who is born without one is born dead, it is QUITE ****ing easy to infer that it exists.

You're not looking at the from a philisophical point of view, like it was stated previously.

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Ah ah aaaaaahhh... You're not thinking philosophically here. Sure, it's reasonable to assume, but assumptions aren't at all connected with proof in philosophy. Ever heard that it's impossible to prove something (besides mathematics)? Well, it is. Can you prove that the keyboard in front of you exists? Can you prove that your brain exists? In order to do these things you have to prove that everyone's not having a mass hallucination in all their senses simultaneously. But then you can call into question the existence of everyone else, and so the only thing you can really prove is your own existence, just like Descartes did, "Cogito ergo sum."

Scientifically, a convergence of evidence will prove scientifically that the teacher has a brain, but it won't be able to scratch the surface on whether or not he truly has a brain, in the philosophical sense.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

This statement, out of most of the ones made here, makes the most sense to me and also explains the brain comment that everyone seems to be complaining about.

[Kaouri_of_the_wind]

I think that the student makes a wonderful argument, even if some of the comparisons are a little off to most. *ahem*. I don't beleive that rediculous "ya gotta see it to believe it" crap. Many things we know are there but we don't see it. During anceint times, when peope didn't understand something, they made up stories to explain them. If you think about it, we are STILL doing that, how do we really know about molecules and atoms and stuff. Just because some guys in a lab say so doesn't mean its beleivable. So doesn't God get a chance? I think we all have serious problems and are too proud to admit it.

[Squeek]

Er, there's a difference.

See, let's take lightning. Lightning used to be an act of an angry god. So the townspeople took that as a sign that they were doing something wrong.

Now we know what lightning is, and we know there's no god involved at all.

To put it bluntly, people from hundreds / thousands of years ago were idiots. Before Newton came along, most people assumed things they didn't understand happened because some god was messing with their lives. Then Newton comes in and he forces people to look at things in a logical, experimental point of view.

By the way, bumping old discsussions is generally frowned upon, but I was looking for an excuse to repeat this argument my science professor told my class on the first day.

[jewpinthethird]

[falconsfan14]

I dont care who you are thats funny.

[Cj_leonine]

You have 30 seconds to repost this bulletin if you believe in god.If you don't, Satan will appear at your bedside while you sleep and slit your throat.

[T3hDDRKid]

Originally Posted by Squeek

To put it bluntly, people from hundreds / thousands of years ago were idiots. Before Newton came along, most people assumed things they didn't understand happened because some god was messing with their lives. Then Newton comes in and he forces people to look at things in a logical, experimental point of view.

AHH!

You don't know how much it annoys me when people say that those who lived in the past were idiots.

The most convincing point I can think of offhand is the construction of the Temple of (I think) Chefren. If the name is wrong, don't jump down my throat. But this tomb was nearly twice the size of the highest temples in Egypt. How he accomplished this was by literally cutting out a mountain piece by piece and putting it on top of another mountain. However, they did not just haul rubble. That would have destroyed the use of the rock as a temple. They cut out forty TON cylinders of granite and rolled it on top of the other mountain. When it was in place, they cut it down to size, which equaled around twenty tons. Few machines even today can easily move a forty ton block.

Pi was invented somewhere around 250 BC by Archemedes, and though he didn't calculate it out to the however-million digits that we have, they also didn't need to, because as a fraction, it serves the same purposes.

Though they may not have had the advanced tools of today, but people from the past were at least as smart, if not smarter, than the people of today. They just weren't as advanced.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by T3hDDRKid

AHH!

You don't know how much it annoys me when people say that those who lived in the past were idiots.

They're idiots by TODAY'S STANDARDS.

The most convincing point I can think of offhand is the construction of the Temple of (I think) Chefren. If the name is wrong, don't jump down my throat. But this tomb was nearly twice the size of the highest temples in Egypt. How he accomplished this was by literally cutting out a mountain piece by piece and putting it on top of another mountain. However, they did not just haul rubble. That would have destroyed the use of the rock as a temple. They cut out forty TON cylinders of granite and rolled it on top of the other mountain. When it was in place, they cut it down to size, which equaled around twenty tons. Few machines even today can easily move a forty ton block.

Don't watch the History Channel much, eh? They have a show that they air often about large machinary which can move large things. I watched one show there they literally drove a movie theatre down the street, turned it something like 90 degrees to the side, then planted it down in a new location.

And yeah, it is impressive that they could move such heavy material in those days. I imagine that the geniuses of those days were better with levers and simple machines of that nature than the average modern American.

Pi was invented somewhere around 250 BC by Archemedes, and though he didn't calculate it out to the however-million digits that we have, they also didn't need to, because as a fraction, it serves the same purposes.

Pi is not a rational number. To represent it as 22/7 is terribly wrong. It would be better to simply use 3.14 and use significant digits on your results. 22/7 adds in completely wrong numbers to the mix.

As for solving for pi: it's not that difficult. I figured out how to do it a while back. You're basically solving for the perimeter of a regular polygon with infinite sides. Good luck doing math with infinity though. I think the early instances of solving for pi used a 100 sides polygon and made the assumption that the 100 sided polygon was equal to a circle (obviously not true, but it allowed for close enough calculation).

Though they may not have had the advanced tools of today, but people from the past were at least as smart, if not smarter, than the people of today. They just weren't as advanced.

No, in most instances, the people of old time were quite stupid by today's standards. Sure ancient GENIUSES might have been better at working with simple machines than the AVERAGE modern human, but they do not compare to the geniuses of modern times, and additionally, the ancient geniuses knowlege was so low. Compare the average ancient man to the average modern man. Who has more knowlege?

[Squeek]

T3hDDRKid: The world is flat.

Also, the sun revolves around the Earth.

[D4rkAng3l]

this thread is giving me a major headache with all the science and stuff

[chickendude]

This was clearly written up. No way was this an actual debate between a college teacher and a student. The college teacher's argument was too ... dumb to be that of an intelligent teacher being payed to prepare and teach a lesson. No way was that student's argument made up on the spot.

Tokzic hit it right on the head. It's a chain mail that makes christians smile when they receive the mail.

[Grandiagod]

Dude, I heard this propoganda when I used to go to church. It's written up by some Christian ass, not a real arguement.

First of all, both their arguements are flawed. (especially since they try to debate each other on their own grounds but fail to take into place the facts of science or the philosophy of Christianity)

Second, this is ridiculous.

[ebs2002]

No, in most instances, the people of old time were quite stupid by today's standards. Sure ancient GENIUSES might have been better at working with simple machines than the AVERAGE modern human, but they do not compare to the geniuses of modern times, and additionally, the ancient geniuses knowlege was so low. Compare the average ancient man to the average modern man. Who has more knowlege?

You're confusing intelligence with knowledge. They're two entirely different matters.

Intelligence is the ability to think; the ability to learn.
Knowledge is what has already been learned.

While I'll agree that the collective knowledge of the world in 2000BC was much lower than the collective knowledge of today, some of the greatest thinkers in history pre-dated the 20th century. I've heard arguments by philosophy professors that Aquinas had an IQ that exceeded 200 (of course, there was no IQ test at that time)...and he lived in the 13th century.

I'd hardly consider him an idiot

[Squeek]

How can you say an idiot lacks intelligence or knowledge?

I didn't connect idiocy to anything in particular, and I am well aware of the differences between knowledge and intelligence.

I'll say that anyone who believed Earth was flat or the Sun revolved around Earth with the obvious proof of the opposite is an idiot.